Abstract

In a previous study the author proposed that the second edition of Leviathan arose from an abortive attempt to print the text in London in 1670, and consisted partly of sheets salvaged from that attempt, and partly of new sheets printed in Amsterdam later in the 1670s. This article defends and amplifies that account of the printing. It responds to the alternative account presented by the late Karl Schuhmann, noting some problematic features of his theory; it considers the evidence of misprints and typographical changes in the Bear; it offers an analysis of the skeleton formes, which, combined with the evidence of misprints, confirms the scenario previously presented; and it also presents some new external evidence which helps to identify the publishers of the Bear edition